IRENE P. HILL, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES A. HILL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A mother sought to enforce child support obligations against the father of their two minor children under Florida's Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Law. The trial court denied her petition based on her prior violation of a court order to return the children to Florida, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the mother's contempt should not be used to deprive the children of potential financial support.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that while the mother's failure to return the children to Florida was inappropriate, this violation could not be used as a basis to deny the children's right to seek financial support from their father under the applicable statute. The children should not be deprived of potential financial assistance due to the mother's contempt of court.
“Appellant was then in Pennsylvania and she has never returned the children to the state, and it is clear from the language (printable) used by the judge at the time he made his ruling in Case No. C66-804 that the thing which rankled him was the failure and refusal of appellant to return to Florida with the children.”
Establishes that the trial judge's primary motivation for denying the petition was punishment for the mother's non-compliance with the prior order to return the children.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1961, Irene P. Hill initiated divorce proceedings against James A. Hill in Florida state court. The trial court awarded her temporary custody of tw…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dismissal Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
In December, 1965, appellant initiated proceedings in Pennsylvania against appel-lee under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Law for the purpose of requiring appellee to support their two minor children. When the case (No. C66-804) came on for hearing in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, the judge entered an order dated May 26, 1966 denying the petition without prejudice “for Petitioner’s failure to abide by orders of this Court entered in Action No. C61-2186 * * * ”, and this appeal ensued.
Action No. C61-2186 was a divorce suit instituted by Irene P. Hill against James A. Hill in 1961, in which the same trial judge awarded' temporary custody of the minor children to plaintiff, subject to rights of visitation by defendant, and required defendant to support plaintiff and the children. On petition for modification filed by defendant the court entered an order finding that plaintiff had removed the children from the jurisdiction of the court without order of court, ordering her to return them to the jurisdiction of the court within thirty days, and suspending support payments until their return or so long as defendant was denied visitation privileges. The children were not returned, so on October 2, 1961, the judge entered a final order striking plaintiff’s pleadings in the case and dismissing the action, thereby divesting himself of further jurisdiction.
During the interval between Case Nos. C61-2186 and C66-804, the same circuit judge, in Case No. C63^tl61, awarded James A. Hill a divorce from Irene P. Hill without determining custody or support, and in Case No. C65-1116, denied, without prejudice, a petition by Irene P. Hill against James A. Hill for support of the children:
We recognize the existence of Section 65.141, F.S.A., which makes it a felony for anyone to take or remove a child beyond the limits of the state under certain circumstances in violation of an order of court or without the permission of the court, but here we are not dealing with a criminal charge and the statute does not apply..
In the litigation between the parties, no order was ever entered restraining appellant from removing the children from the juris*348diction of the court, but in case No. C61-2186, an order was entered requiring appellant to return the children to the state. Appellant was then in Pennsylvania and she has never returned the children to the state, and it is clear from the language (printable) used by the judge at the time he made his ruling in Case No. C66-804 that the thing which rankled him was the failure and refusal of appellant to return to Florida with the children. We can understand his feeling about the appellant, but we do not think it should have been extended to the minor children, who may be in real need of financial assistance from their father.
Therefore, the order denying appellant’s petition for relief under Chapter 88, F.S.A. is hereby reversed, and the cause is remanded to the lower court with directions to conduct a full hearing therein, and determine the rights of the parties under the provisions of said chapter.
Reversed and remanded.
CROSS and REED, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cochran v. Tatum R. Cochran, 263 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…uty to support while the mother was in contempt dismissed this proceeding, and the mother appeals. Mrs. Cochran is subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the Florida court, which was not the case with Mrs. Hill in Hill v. Hill, Fla.App.4th 1967, 204 So. 2d 346, on which the appellant relies. Here the Circuit Court expressly reserved jurisdiction to insure that its judgment would be complied with. It was not. Mrs. Cochran is in contempt of a Florida court which has jurisdiction over her case. Her remedy is…